grep -v $white_person's_last_name
Alright, after four references to the mouse wheel, I'm calling bullshit. You are engaging in an ancient practice called FUD. Linux is the most popular and widely-used operating system in history. The reasons are obvious.
The only reason I use Windows --the ONLY reason-- is because it runs the Adobe Creative Suite. If Adobe ported their apps to Linux, Wine or other, I would dump Windows so fast Superman wouldn't be able to keep up.
P.S. I've been using Linux as a primary work desktop for 23 years. I've built five successful businesses on it. I can say with absolute certainty that I have never once EVER had a problem with a mouse wheel.
I have nothing but respect for what you've accomplished, Mr. Shuttleworth. I think Ubuntu and Canonical have done more for Linux than most people will ever know.
Just take a moment out of your day when you get a chance and thank God you aren't a game developer, because if you think you've seen haters, you will be amazed at how much worse it can get.
If Linux's biggest problem is its users, gaming's biggest problem is gamers.
I had all six at various points during my career.
I tried to do a good job, but it didn't matter. I was driven out of every job, mainly because I didn't respond properly when ordered to "do it wrong or you're fired."
If you have a bad manager (and you always will) you can't win. Managers have the unassailable power to ruin your life and they will never fail to do so. Then they will hire some half-literate former janitor from overseas to pretend to do your job until the stock options vest.
It's almost a mini-escrow transaction, which isn't disclosed to the seller until the cunt ripoff fraud buyer disappears over the hill with the money and your $1600 mountain bike.
PayPal can eat a dick. Cashier's check or fuck off.
And two days later your thickness arrives in the mail.
Amazon is amazing.
In the second, for an HTML/CSS job (21 years total experience), I got an offer. I went to the recruiter to fill out paperwork, signed an arbitration agreement (slick, huh?) and then was told by some 23-year-old sandal-wearing "account executive" the company had withdrawn the offer to re-evaluate.
If you're having trouble finding people in Orange County, it's because the recruiting companies and the companies they hire for are frauds.
Hi. You'd probably rather not bring up account numbers.
You're a shill. Have a nice day.
> it's actually the telephone company which owns the iPhone
I hate to do this, mostly 'cause I like you, but that's simply not true - by precedent. To give two good examples:
1. Your home. If you're paid and current with your mortgage and the bank has not foreclosed and taken possession then the lending agency can not grant rights.
2. Your car, just like the above. The dealership or credit agency can not give the police permission to search your vehicle. Well, they can. It won't hold up in court.
So long as you're current then you have most every right you'd have with complete ownership. You own your house even while the bank owns it. You have the deed, they have a lien on the deed. The same thing for your car if it is not yet fully paid off. I'm not positive but I strongly suspect that if you're incarcerated and unable to make your payment then they still can't give permission to search.
>> not everyone starts with the same level of driving ability
Funny you should mention that. Up above, I mentioned that I used to drive while very intoxicated. I never had an accident, got violated, and got my first (and only) moving violation in 1975. Yet, I drove professionally for a while (it was my MOS) and am an automotive aficionado who has taken many, many lessons and driven on-track and rallied - all strictly amateur. I've even done those things while moderately (for a drunk) intoxicated.
There is a component that is skill and I don't think people put much stock in it. I know, for example, that I drove better while moderately impaired than many non-impaired drivers. (Only an idiots says they drive better drunk. You do not. Though you might drive better after one or two if you're nervous about driving. I'd not call that drunk.)
So, two things... I do believe that training and ability come into play. I do not believe I am skilled enough to drive drunk safely. It was stupid and negligent when I did so.
In a perfect world, driving drunk would probably be legal but infractions while driving drunk would be penalized more heavily. It is not a perfect world and
Do NOT do this.
When you drive drunk, and are so drunk that you truly have a hard time seeing, then just close one eye. It actually works. I had a drunken buddy share that kernel of wisdom with me. I have no idea how I never got an OUI or caused an accident - no infractions since a speeding ticket in something like 1975 and zero at-fault accidents ever - and I drive a whole lot more than most.
So, yeah... Do NOT do that. I learned my lesson without any actual repercussions but I drove drunk more often than I drove sober - for a very long time. I'm actually not sure if I'll ever be able to speculate that I've driven more sober than I've driven while intoxicated. I no longer drink. I have had alcoholic beverages since but never more than two and, in three years, I think I've had 7 total drinks and most of those were not finished.
Still, my retarded ass drove everywhere intoxicated. I mean everywhere. I drove across the country, multiple times, while drunk. Sometimes, too drunk to walk. I've always gotten away with it. I'm shocked that I never killed anyone or had an accident. I have had my car hit, twice, while stopped at a stop light and while parked, but was not at fault for either. I do a bit of amateur rally racing and I've crashed there. I was not, on the other hand, drunk for that - at least not very. (I've competed while marginally drunk.)
I had a friend who had a BAC testing, portable thing, and it is not accurate but I've pegged it out at
Yes, yes they are. The concept of better 9 criminals be set free than 1 innocent person not going to jail is seen as quaint.
Yes, they'll deprive all for the sake of the few. (See firearms as an example.)
There's a certain level of risk assumed with operating a motor vehicle on a public road. I'm not suggesting that we allow unfettered access and lawlessness but I am suggesting that we honestly look at the probabilities and then make a realistic choice regarding where the lines should be drawn.
However, the idea of accepting risk is crazy talk these days. I think there are people who would ban most anything just so they could maybe stop someone from doing harm with it. I'm not really sure where this leads but I suspect we'll all be incarcerated to protect us from ourselves in a few thousand years. No, you may not go outside - there's danger!
Really, a lot of people are just cowards at heart and others really get off in restricting rights that they, themselves, do not make use of. For an example, I'm not really a religious person but I have no problem with that right being removed. How many times have you seen others suggesting some sort of "final solution" for the religious?
The number of computer scientists in a room is inversely proportional to the number of bugs in their code.